Hi guys just wondering, i’ve seen some people mention that the Super Fortress is one of their favourite bombers. I’m curios to know why, obviously it’s technologically better but aesthetically to me it’s just a sausage with wings, I much prefer the B-17.
@GINGER01 Thanks. I was scrolling through youtube and came across an old Army training film you might find interesting.
@F104Deathtrap I thought your analysis was good.
@GINGER01 And she was good, in the late 30's. I totally agree with you, people had to work with what they had and you can't just call a "time out" to war for a few years to develop a better method of levelling enemy cities. B-17 was on hand, and it got the job done.
In an overly confrontational way, I'm just trying to get people to consider some of the more effective planes and strategies used back then.
@F104Deathtrap I do think you have to remember that strategic bombing was really an entire new concept though and the US Army Air Corps did make changes through out the war like fighter escorts and bomber formation. Though if you ask a WW2 veteran that flew in the B-17, they would probably tell you how good of a machine she was.
The B-17 is among the most overrated designs of World War II. Built around the outrageously misguided idea that bombers could protect themselves in daylight raids, thousands of airmen were needlessly sacrificed in these machines. As a result of the aging technology and inept USAAF decision making, not only did the Flying Fortress carry tons of extra weight, but also extra men. The result was a plane that required more people than any other heavy bomber and delivered less bombs. Had its original designers been aware of later breakthroughs in wing design (as per the B-24) or US leadership simply changed the attack profile to nighttime raids (as per the Brits) the lackluster performance of the B-17 could've been improved. But the generals doubled-down and sold their gamble to the public as a "noble sacrifice."
There were numerous bombers that were safer and more effective even in the early months of the war. The de Havilland Mosquito, the Lancaster, even the (also poorly conceived) B-24 were better suited to the task. But the propaganda machine chose the B-17, and now, so do the movies.
My unpopular opinion:
I actually dislike the B 17 and Lancaster nose designs, they just look really stubby and messy to me.